;[)26 




.^■ 



^^^ 






-:■'%■ 
.<?*/■ 



-^.^ 






^Ad^ 



'>>, V 



'J?^ '. »^^ 





















» • » * «0^ ^:>, ' , , ' ' v^ •'•^ 




..>^ 



,■> 



« * 












*bv 




Cr, - V 



SPEECH 



MR. DAVIS, OF MISSISSIPPI, 

ON THE SUBJECT OF , i.\>^ ' J 

^ SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES^ ^ '^^J/ 

V^,^^ 

DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 13 & 14, 1850. 



The Senate having, as in Committee of the "Whole, proceeded to the 
consideration of the resolutions submitted by Mr. Clay — 
Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi, addressed the Senate as follows : 

Mr. President : One of the greatest causes of the apprehension which 
fills my mind under the existing state of things, is the indifference and 
incredulity of those who represent the majority of the United States. 
Yet from every quarter of this broad Union come daily evidences of the 
excitement which is felt, of the gathering storm which threatens to break 
upon us. That this Senate chamber should be crowded, that the galle- 
ries should be filled, and admittance be sought upon the floor, when men 
of high national reputation address the Senate, should not surprise any 
one. But when it is repeated on an occasion like this, when it must be 
the cause, and not the advocate, that attracts the multitude, it is time 
that all should feel there is that within the breasts of the people which ^ 
claims the attention of the Legislature. 

When the honorable Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) introduced 
the resolutions now under discussion, I thought it my duty to present my 
views of w^hat I considered injustice to those whom I represent, and to 
offer some opposition to the dangerous doctrines which I believed he 
then presented. Whether it was impatience at finding any of his opin- 
ions controverted, or whether it was that he sought an adversary so feeble 
as to secure an easy victory, I know not, and it matters not to me. He 
challenged me to this discussion whenever J was ready. I was ready 
then, and meet him now. It has been postponed at his option, and not 
mine ; and that, when he prepared and delivered his speech before the 
Senate, I did not immediately follow him, was because I could not obtain 
the floor. I now come to lift the glove he then threw down, and trust in 
the justice of the cause in which I stand. 

The country has been induced to expect — and notwithstanding all pre- 
vious evidence against it, even I had cherished the hope — that the great 
power of that Senator, and his known influence in the country, would 
have been exerted in a crisis so dangerous as this, \vith the high and 
holy purpose of preserving the Union. I had hoped from him a compro- 

TOWERS, PRIST. 



2 ,X\,-^^ 

mise that ^A'ould have contained the spirit of that which, in another dan- 
gerous period in the history of this country, brought calm and sun- 
shine, instead of the gh)om which then lowered over us. In this hope I 
have been disappointed — grievously disappointed by the character of the 
resolutions which he has introduced, and yet more grievously disap- 
pointed in the remarks l)y which ihey were prefaced. If that great 
poM^er and influence to which I have alluded, and that eloquence upon 
which ninltitudes have hung entranced, and rememl^ered only to admire, 
had now been exerted in the cause of the weak against the strong, the 
cause of the Constitution against its aggressors, the evils by which we 
are surrounded might perhaps have been removed, and the decline of 
* that Senator's sun been even more bright than its meridian glory. But, 
instead of this, he has chosen to throw his influence into the scale of the 
preponderating aggressive majority, and in so doing vehementl}' to assert 
his undisputed right to express his opinions fearless of all mankind. 
Why, sir, there was nothing to apprehend, and I presume no one will 
dispute the right of the Senator to advance his opinions in any decorous 
language he might choose. 

Mr. President, my feelings and my duties run in the same channel. 
My convictions of what is necessary to preserve the Union correspond 
Avith my opinions in relation to the local and peculiar interests which I 
particularly represent. I have therefore no sacrifices to make, unless it 
be that personal sacrifice I make in appearing under circumstances like 
those which now surround me. 

The greater part of the Senator's argument has been directed against 
the right of the Southern States to that equality of enjoyment in the 
Territories to which they assert they are entitled. He has rebuked the 
spirit of abolitionism as the evil of the country, but, in doing so, instead 
of describing it as a factious, disorganizing, revolutionary spirit, he has 
only spoken of it as the offspring of party, the result of passion. Now, 
Mr. President, I contend that the reverse is true. I contend that it is the 
want of party which has built up this faction and rendeied it dangerous ; 
that so long as party organization preserved its integrity, there was no 
place for a third party, and no danger from it. If this were merely the 
result of passion, I should then have hopes which I cannot now cherish. 
If it were the mere outbreak of violence, I should see some prospect for 
its subsidence. But considering it, as I do, the cold, calculating purpose 
of those who seek for sectional dominion, I see nothing short of conquest 
on the one side, or submission on the other. This is the great danger 
which hangs over us — not passion — not party ; but the settled, selfish 
purpose which alone can sustain and probably will not abandon the 
movement. That upon which it originally rested has long since passed 
away. It is no longer the clamor of a noisy fanaticism, but the steady 
advance of a self-sustaining power to the goal of unlimited supremacy. 
This is the crevasse which the Senator described — a crevasse which he 
figuratively says is threatening submersion to the whole estate, while 
the owners are quarrelling about the division of its })ro{its. Yes, sir, a 
moral crevasse has occurred: fanaticism and ignorance — political rivalry — 
sectional hate — strife for sectional dominion, have accumulated into a 
mighty flood, and pour their turgid waters through the broken constitu- 
tion, threatening not total submersion, but only the destruction of a part 
of the estate — that part in which my constituency, as well as that of the 
Senator, is found. 



What, then, under such circumstances as these, does the Senator pro- 
pose as a remedy ? Does he call all the parties to check the breach 
which threatens danger to one? Does he lend his own hand to arrest 
the progress of the flood 1 No. He comes here, representing those 
Southern interests which are at stake, surrenders the whole claim of the 
South, and gives a support to abolitionism which no Northern man — no, 
nor every Northern man in the Senate — could have afforded. However 
much we may regret, our surprise must be limited by the recollection that 
we had some cause to anticipate this. The public press had given us last 
summer a letter from him, addressed to the abolitionists of Ohio — a man 
most notorious among them being upon the committee — in which that 
very ordinance of 1787 was treated as a great blessing and slavery as a 
curse. The representatives of the South have never sought to violate 
that compromise or concession, whatever it maybe called, that was 
made in 1787. The representatives of the South have not entered into 
arguments upon the blessings and evils of slavery. They have said, 
from time to time, that it was a domestic institution ; that it was under 
their own control ; and that they claimed for it only the protection which 
the Constitution accords to every other species of property. Less than 
that they can never take, unless they are willing to become an inferior 
class, a degraded caste in the Union. 

A large part of the non-slaveholding States have declared war against 
the institution of slavery. They have announced that it shall not be ex- 
tended, and with that annunciation have coupled the declaration that it 
is a stain upon the Republic — that it is a moral blot which should be 
obliterated. Now, sir, can any one believe, does any one hope, that the 
Southern States in this confederacy will continue, as in times gone by, 
to support the Union, to bear its burdens, in peace and in war, in a de- 
gree disproportioned to their numbers, if that very Government is to be 
arrayed in hostility against an institution so interwoven with its inte- 
r^ts, its domestic peace, and all its social relations, that it cannot be 
disturbed without causing their overthrow ? This Government is the 
agent of all of the States ; can it be expected of any of them that they 
will consent to be bound by its acts, v/hen that agent announces the set- 
tled purpose in the exercise of its power to overthrow that which it was 
its duty to uphold? That obligation ceases whenever such a construc- 
tion shall be placed upon its power by the Federal Government. The 
essential purpose for which the grant was made being disregarded, the 
means given for defence being perverted to assault. State allegiance 
thenceforward resumes its right to demand the service, the whole service, 
of all its citizens. 

The claim is set up for the Federal Government not only to restrict 
slavery jrom entering the Territories, but to abolish slavery in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, to abolish it in the arsenals and dock-yards, to with- 
draw from it the protection of the American flag wherever it is found 
upon the high seas — in fact, to strip it of every protection it derives from 
Government. All this under the pretext that propert)' in slaves is local 
in its nature, and derives its existence from municipal law. Slavery 
existed before the formation of this Union. It derived from the Consti- 
tution that recognition which it would not have enjoyed without the 
confederation. If the Slates had not united together, there would have 
been no obligation on adjoining States to regard any species of property 
unknown to themselves. But it was one of the compromises of the Con- 



stitution that the slave property in the Southern States should be recog- 
nized as property throughout the United States. It was so recognized 
in the obligation to restore fugitives — recognized in the power to tax 
them as persons — recognized in their representation in the halls of Con- 
gress. As a property recognized by the Constitution, and held in a portion 
of the States, the Federal Government is bound to admit it into all the Ter- 
ritories, and to give it such protection as other private property receives. 

I do not propose to follow the argument of the Senator from Georgia, 
(Mr. Berrien.) I will not mar its beauty or weaken its force by any 
thing which I can say. I believe that his argument upon that point was 
so conclusive as to require no addition, if I had the power to make it. 
It becomes us, it becomes you — all who seek to preserve this Union, and 
to render it perpetual — to ask, why is this power claimed ? Why is its 
exercise sought ? Why is this resolution to obstruct the extension of 
slavery into the Territories introduced? It must be for the purpose of 
political power ; it can have no other rational object. Every one must 
understand that, whatever be the evil of slavery, it is not increased by 
its diffusion. Every one familiar with it knows that it is in proportion 
to its sparseness that it becomes less objectionable. Wherever there is 
an immediate connexion between the master and slave, whatever there 
is of harshness in the system is diminished. Then it preserves the do- 
mestic character, and strictly patriarchal relation. It is only when the 
slaves are assembled in large numbers, on plantations, and are removed 
from the interested, the kind, the aifectionate care of the master, that it 
ever can partake of that cruelty which is made the great charge aga,inst 
it by those who know nothing of it, and which, I will passingly say, 
probably exists to a smaller extent than in any other relation of labor 
to capital. It is, then, for the purpose of political power ; and can those 
who, in violation of constitutional rights, seek and acquire political 
power, which, in progress of time, will give them the ability to change 
the Constitution of the United States, be supposed just then to be seized 
with a feeling of magnanimity and justice, which will prevent them 
from using the power which they thus corruptly sought and obtained ? 
Man, Mr. President, may become corrupted by the possession of power ; 
he may seek it for pure motives, and be corrupted by its exercise. The 
reverse of this all history and all reason deny. 

Warned by the delusive compromises of the ])ast, we are stimulated by 
the dangers which surround us to look forward to the issue that has been 
suggested as the ultimate end — to the day when the power to remodel 
the Constitution, being possessed, wall be exercised ; and therefore the 
men of the present generation are called upon to meet it ; they have no 
right to postpone to posterity the danger which is laid at their own 
doors ; ours is the responsibility, and upon us devolves theduty of decid- 
ing the issue. If, sir, I represented a Northern State, however much it 
might be opposed to the institution of slavery, I feel that I should say to 
my constituents, without a balance of power such as will enable every 
interest to protect itself — without such checks and such restraints as can 
never exist where any one section is paramount to all others — that the 
great purposes of this Union could never be preserved, the confederacy 
must be short-lived, and perish by the destruction of the principles upon 
which it was founded. That, for such reasons, under the case sup- 
posed, I would as now, oppose a policy which, if it confer a temporary 
benefit on one, must end in the permament injury of all. 



I believe, Mr. President, it is essential that neither section should have 
such power in Congress as would render them able to trample upon the 
rights of the other section of this Union, It would be a blessing, an es- 
sential means to preserve the confederacy, that in one branch of Con- 
gress the North and in the other the South should have a majority of re- 
presentation. Ours is but a limited agency. We have but few powers, 
and those are of a general nature ; and, if legislation was restricted and 
balanced in the mode I have suggested. Congress would never be able to 
encroach upon the r'ghts and institutions of any portion of the Union, 
nor could its acts ever meet with resistance from any part of it. The 
reverse being the case, who knows how soon the time may come when 
men will rise in arms to oppose the laws of Congress ? Whenever you 
take from the people of this country the confidence that this is their 
Government, that it reflects their will, that it looks to their interests, the 
foundation upon which it was laid is destroyed, and the fabric falls to the 
ground. More emphaticall}' in this than in any other, though it was 
said by the great Emperor of Europe to be true of all, does this Govern- 
ment depend upon the consent of the people. So emphatically is it true, 
that the laws of Congress could not be executed in any one State of this 
Union if that State was resolved to resist it. So entirely is this the case, 
that, whatever law may be passed at this session — and I perceive a dispo- 
sition on all sides to pass one for the recovery of fugitive slaves — I feel 
that that law will be a dead letter in any State where the popular opin- 
ion is opposed to such rendition. I would sooner trust it to-day to the 
sense of constitutional obligations of the States than to the enforcement 
of any law which Congress can enact against the popular opinion of 
those among whom it is executed. I have never expected any benefit to 
result to us from this species of legislation. I believe upon this, as upon 
every other subject, that we must rely more on the patriotism, the good 
sense, and morality of the people, than upon any tribunal, to preserve the 
rights of the Southern States. I have said elsewhere, and where there 
was none to represent them, that I believed, if the wrongs and injuries 
heaped upon the South were understood by the great body of the people 
at the North, the whole conduct of their politicians would be rebuked, 
and peace and harmony would be restored. But, sir, it is the evil of the 
time in which we live, that the responsibilities which rest upon us — the 
responsibilities of our day — are sought to be transferred to another. It 
is the misfortune of the country that men, instead of meeting issues, 
shrink from them, and, instead of relying upon the sober second thought 
of the people, are v^^aving to and fro, like reeds before the wind, to the 
pressure of every popular impulse. We have high and holy duties to 
perform — duties of which we are wholly unworth}', unless every man 
here is ready to hazard his political life for the maintenance of those 
principles which he has sworn to uphold and to preserve. 

But, Mr. President, it is my purpose, and I am sorry, even for 
one moment, to have diverged from it, calmly and briefly to direct my at- 
tention to the main argument of the Senator from Kentuck3\ I claim, 
sir, that slavery being property in the United States, and so recognised 
by the Constitution, a slaveholder has the right to go with that property 
into any part of the United States where some sovereign power has not 
forbidden it. I deny, sir, that this Government has the sovereign power 
to prohibit it from the Territories. I deny that any territorial communi- 
ty, being a dependance of the United States, has that power, or can pro- 



6 

hihit it, and therefore my claim presented is this, that the slaveholder has 
a right to go with his slave into an}' portion of these United States, ex- 
cept in a State where the fundamental law has forbidden it. I know, sir, 
that the popular doctrine obtains, that ever}^ community has that power; 
and I was sorry to hear the Senator from Kentucky, in some portion of his 
speech, assent to it, though in olhers he did oppose it. Who constitute 
the communities which are to exercise sovereign rights over the Territo- 
ries? Those who, in the race for newly ac<iuired regions, may fiist get 
there. By what right, sir, do they claim to exercise it ? The Territo- 
ries belong to the United States, and by the States only can sovereignty 
{ be alienated. If a mass of persons, sufficiently great to seize upon one 
1 of the Territories of the United States, should, by a revolution, wrest it 
i from us, then they would have sovereignty, and could establish any fun- 
t damentnl laws they chose; but until that high act of revolution is 
■ performed, it will not cease, save by their consent, to be a Territory 
belonging to the United Slates. The sovereignty rests in the States, and 
there is no power, save that of the States, which can exclude any prop- 
erty, or can determine what is property, in the Territories so held by the 
States in common. That power the States have not delegated ; it can 
be exercised rightfully only by compact or agreement of the States. It 
is, therefore, that I have held and hold that the Missouri compromise de- 
rived its validity from the acquiescence of the States, and not from the 
act of Congress. 

The General Government has, as agent, to dispose of the public lands, 
the power necessary to execute that trust. How far this extends it may 
not be vcr}' easy by fixed standard to deteimine, but it is easy to perceive 
that this cannot giv e sovereignty, or any other than the subordinate func- 
tions of government. The Senator frcm Kentucky, however, claims this 
from the clause which gives to Congress the power to dispose ©f and 
make " needful rules and regulations" for the territory and other property 
of the United States. I admired his ingenuity when he said Teri'itories. 
"Territoi'ies" is not the phrase of the Consfitution; it is "territory," and 
that territory was the common domain of the United States. That ter- 
ritorj' — public land — lies within as well as without the limits of the 
States of the Union. Every new State has been admitted with territory 
recognized as the property of the United States. 

The territory held by the old States was transferred to the United 
States as a common property. Out of this territory new States have 
been formed, and the unsold land in these States is still held as the ter- 
ritory of the United States. Does this power, then, to dispose of that 
territory within the State of Mississippi, for instance, confer upon Con- 
gress the sovereignty enabling it to decide what property shall go upon 
that land, and what shall be the relation of persons subsisting upon it ? 
And if it be not a good argument for a quarter section, or a half section, 
or a township, it is not good for the vast extent of border which we have 
upon the Pacific ocean. It is a power over property, and over property 
merely. Fully to exercise this will require, where there is no govern- 
ment, that some organization shall be made. Since that has been ar- 
gued, and so ably argued, by the Senator from Michigan, (jMr. Cass,) it 
may not need further remark. I regret, however, ihat I am not able to 
agree with the M'hole of the argument of that distinguished Senator. 
Ilis position and argument carries me to the point where any number of 
individuals, however small, however unauthorized, may assert that sove- 



reignty which I hold to reside only in the States of this Union. This 
vagrant power to govern the Territories, located by some in one place, 
and b}^ others in another, has never been drawn from a source which 
could not be controverted, except one. That, sir, is the right which the 
people inhabiting the Territory have to throw oiT their dependency upon 
this government, and to establish a sovereign tState by the right of revo- 
lution. My argument goes only to the condition of those Territories 
and those communities, while they are a part of the United States. If 
the Senator from Michigan, when he asserts the powers of sovereignty 
to rest in the people of the Territory, and to be derived from Almighty 
God, means thus to assert as inalienable the right of revolution, and to 
draw this power from that source, then I agree with him entirely. 

It is also, and by very high authority, attempted to draw the right to 
govern Territories from the treaty-making power. That power does 
not rest in Congress. It is not a function of the General Government. 
The treaty-making power vests in the President and in the Senate — the 
one to negotiate, the other to ratify and conlirm. If it is drawn from 
the treaty making power, and belongs to that, or grows out of it, then it 
belongs to the President and the Senate, and not to Congress. The 
treaty-making power is the mean which has been and may be legiti- 
mately used to acquire territory ; but M'hen it has been acquired, the 
transferred property is under all the conditions of the Constitution. It is 
then to be governed according to its principles. It matters not how it 
was obtained. The Constitution is supreme over it, and there can be no 
paramount law. The Constitution is the bond between the States — the 
agreement by which they act in concert. No power can be exercised 
by any department of this Government, and least of all by its legislative 
department, which is not derived from that source. 

But the Senator from Kentucky did not stop here. If he had paused 
at this controverted point — if he had only asserted that the Constitution 
gave power at one place or another — it would not have presented the 
dangerous aspect it wears in this discussion. But he goes further. He 
delares — and his position, his high name, may do us great injury by the 
declaration — that slavery does not exist, that it is interdicted by the law 
from the Territories acquired from Mexico; and, moreover, that it is ex- 
cluded by a decree of nature, and of nature's God, from, the land. The 
Senator quoted no law. He referred to a date when there was no law. 
Upon the point of prohibition I took issue with him, and upon that point 
I propose to present the proof. I have here, sir, the act of 1824, the de- 
cree of 1829, and the act of 1837, in the original language, which, I be- 
lieve, are all that can be found of action of the Mexican Government, 
upon that sul)ject ; and, by one competent for the purpose, I have had 
them translated. The act of 3 824, is for the prohibition of the traffic in 
slaves. It declares : 

"DlICREE OF THE 1 3th Jult, 1824. 

"Prohibition by Cong-ress of the Traffic in Slaves. 

"The Sovereign Constituent Congress of the United States of Mexico has thought it proper 
to decree as follows: 

"1. The commerce or traffic in slaves is forever prohibited in the Territory of the Unite<l 
States of Mexico, under whatever flag, and coming from \vhate\ er Power, (or country.) 

" 3. Mavcs which shall be introrluccd against the tenor of the foregoing article are free, from 
the single fact of treading the Tf.rritnry of Mexico. 

"3. Any vessel, vidiether national or foreign, in which slaves shall be introduced, shall be ir- 
reversibly forfeited, with all it-s cargo; and the owner, supcrc:irgo, captain, master, and pilots, 
shall suffer the punishment of ten years' imnrisonment. 



8 

"4. This decree shall have effect from the very day of its publication. But, as to the penal- 
ties prescribed in the foregoing article, it.shall not have such effect for six months, with reference to the 
colonists who, in virtue of the law of the 14th October last, as to the colonization of the isthmus 
of Gonzacodcos, disembarked slaves for the purpose of introducing them into Mexican territory." 

This was a prohibition against taking slaves into California and New 
Mexico from the United States, while those Territories belonged to the 
Mexican Republic. This is the only case in which a permanency is de- 
clared for the policy avowed, is the only prohibition, and it is now clearly 
inoperative. Next is the decree of 1829, the decree of a usurper — pass- 
ed not by forms of law, but in violation of them. It declares : 

" 15th day of April, 1829. 

"Decree of the Governmeut, in virtue of Extraordinary Powers. Abolition of Slavery in the 

Republic. 

"1. Slavery is (or literally remains) abolished in the republic. 
" 2. Those are consequently free who were heretofore considered as slaves. 
_ "3. When the condition of the Treasury admits of it, the proprietors of slaves will be indem- 
nified in a manner to be settled by the laws." 

That decree was not executed. That some proprietors lo.st their slaves 
is not doubted ; but that it was not fully executed is clear, from the fact 
that, in 1837, legislation occurred to carry out the object of the decree: 

"5th DAT, Aphii, 4, 1837. 
" Law. 

"Slavery is (or literally remains) abolished in the republic, without any exception whatever. 

" 1. Slavery is (or literally remains) abolished, without any exception, in all the republic. 

" 2. The owners of slaves manumitted by the present law, or by the decree of the loth September, 
1829, (summary of that month, page 2137,) will be indemnified for the valu« of thesame; this value 
to be estimated by the valuation of their personal qualities; for which purpose a judge will be 
named by the commissary general, or his representative, and another by the owner, and in case 
of disagreement, a third, named by the proper constitutional alcalde, without interposition of ap- 
peal of any kind from this decision. 1 he indemnification of which this article speaks will not 
be effective as regards the emigrants of Texas that may have taken a part in the revolution of that 
department. 

"3. The same owners to whom will be given gratis the original documents of the valuation 
referred to in the anterior article will present them to the Supreme Government, who will ordain 
that the general treasury issue the corresponding bonds for value of the respective amounts. 

"The payment of said bonds will take place in the manner which the Government may judge 
most equitable, concihating the rights of individuals with the actual state of the public funds." 

Here it will be seen, by comparison, that when perpetuity is intended, 
a distinct expression is used, as in the act of 1824 — -^^^ra sicmpre, forever; 
this is not found in the abolition decree or act of Congress. How, there- 
fore, do gentlemen learn the intent, and how will they proceed to give 
the stamp of eternal to the act of a Government which furnishes annual 
revolutions? 

This law was never carried out. So ffir as I have been able to learn, 
the appraisement, which VA'^as a part of the law, with which it was to go 
into effect, was never made, nor in any manner compensation rendered. 
More, sir ; so far as I have been able to learn, this decree for the aboli- 
tion of slavery, and the act of 1837, were both in violation of the wishes 
of the States and individuals particularly concerned. It was enacted 
against their will, by usurpation of power, first on the part of the dicta- 
tor, and secondly on the part of the Mexican Congress. 

We have, in our practice and in our principles of government, nothing 
which can be considered as a parallel to a dictator, as known in the history 
of Mexico. Tlie nearest parallel which I can imagine is, to suppose that 
in a period of invasion and imminently great danger, martial law should 
be declared over the whole of the United States. Suppose, in that case, 



that the Executive of the United States, vested with extraordinaiy pow- 
er, should decree that slavery was abolished throughout the United 
States by virtue of the powers which he held under martial law, does 
any body believe it would be submitted to ? Will any man contend that 
such a decree would have the validity of law in this Union 1 Will any 
man contend that if a future Congress should legislate in conformity 
thereto, and to compensate those who had lost their slaves under such a 
decree, the owner would be thereby compelled to submit to the decree 1 
Or does any man believe that even if the right were conceded to our 
Congress to pass an emancipation act, providing that the slaves should 
be liberated by paying for them, the passage of such an act would be 
obligatory upon the owners before the compensation was made? All 
these points failed in the Mexican case. So far, then, as I can view this 
case, with my notions of constitutional construction, it was void in the 
beginning, and remained void to the end. 

But suppose it was a law. However informal the enactment, that 
supposition may be made from the fact that slavery did not exist in 
Mexico at the time we acquired the territory. Suppose it be conceded 
that by law it was abolished — could that law be perpetual ? — could it 
extend to the territory after it became the property of the United States? 
Did we admit territory from Mexico subject to the Constitution and laws 
of Mexico? Did we pay fifteen millions of dollars for jurisdiction over 
California and New Mexico, that it might be held subordinate to the lavi^ 
of Mexico ? In the discussion upon that treaty by which we acquired the 
territor}^ it was a very general opinion that we should get jurisdiction, 
and jurisdiction alone ; that all the land would be found to be covered 
by grants which had become valid, so that we should not get public do- 
main. Under the present construction, it seems that we did not get juris- 
diction either. 

The argument made here and elsewhere for the continuance of the 
laws of Mexico is drawn from the laws of nations in relation to a con- 
quered territory. I do not intend to go into that discussion. It is gra- 
tifying to every one, and marks the progress of civilization, to observe 
step after step taken to soften the rigors of war, and to ameliorate the 
condition of the subjugated. But, sir, this is not a conquest. This peo- 
ple came not to us as a conquered race. We acquired the territory by 
purchase and treaty, and we got from Mexico only that which she was 
willing to sell. The negotiation of the treaty shows that our Commis- 
sioner endeavored even to get a small strip off from Sonora, and was 
refused upon the ground that they would not interfere with the limits of 
a State. They sold us that which they were Mailing to part from ; and 
whatever it was worth to us, we paid them much more than it was 
worth to them. 

It is not to the law of nations, it is not to the moral feeling of the age, 
in relation to a conquered people, that we are to look. It is to the trea- 
ty, to the terms of the treaty, and to the principles of the Constitution 
of the United States. Of the two articles — the 8th and 9th — the one 
secures all the rights of property to the Mexicans in the Territory at 
the time of its acquisition ; the other guaranties a further admission to 
the rights of citizenship : 

"Article tiii. — Mexicans now established in Territories previously belonging to Mexico, 
and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by (he present 
treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican 



10 

republic, retaining the propertj' which they possess in the said Territories, or disposing thereof, 
aud removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, 
to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever. Those who shall prefer to remain in the said Ter- 
ritories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of 
the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year 
from the date of exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said 
Territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the 
character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States. 
"Article ix. — The Mexicans who, in the Territories afore^aid, shall not preserve the char- 
acter of citizens of the Mexican republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding 
article, fhall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper 
time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of 
citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution ; and in the mean 
time shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and 
secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction." 

The Commissioners of Mexico had no idea that they were, by treaty 
transferring their law abolishing slavery into the United States. They 
had no concej)tion that we were to be bound by the edicts and statutes 
of Mexico. And certainly if such an idea had been entertained by the 
Senate, it could not have been sancl.ioned by two-thirds of them. But 
this is not left undecided, or to mere speculation. This question was 
brought up in the discussion between the Com-missioners, and it will be 
found, by a letter directed to the then Secretary of State (the Hon. Jas. 
Buchanan) by our agent, Mr. Trist, dated at Tacubaya, February 4, 
1847, that the Mexican Commissioners pressed this point, the continua- 
tion of their law for the exclusion of slavery, upon Mr. Trist, in the 
earnest language ^^'hich was read by the Senafor from Kentucky. 

But the Senator did not read all that was said in rej)ly to the Mexi- 
can Commissioners. I believe it appears in his revised speech. After 
telling them that such a proposition could not be entertained, Mr. Trist 
says: 

- "I concluded by assuring them that the bare meniJon of the subject in any treaty to which the Uni- 
ted States were a party was an absolute impossibility ; that no President of the United States would 
dare to present any such treaty to the Senate; and that, if it were in their power to offer me the 
whole territory described in our projet, increased tenfold in value, and, in addition to that, covered 
a foot thick over v^'ith pure gold, upon the single condition that slavery should be excluded there- 
from, I could not entertain the offer for a moment, nor think even of communicating it to 
Washington. The matter ended in their being fully satisfied that this topic was one not to be 
touched, and it was dropped, with good feeling on both sides." 

Then, sir, the people of Mexico cannot expect that their law shall be 
recognized by our Government. The Commissioner of the United States 
rejected the proposition as one which could not be entertained. 

With this state of facts, the Senate have ratified the treaty. Under 
the belief that the Constitution af the United States covers all the terri- 
tory which belongs to the States, under the conviction that the Supreme 
Court of the United States, sitting in judgment under the Constitution, 
would sustain us in such rights, we have tried to organize Territorial 
Governments ; we have tried to transfer this question from Congress to 
the Supreme Court of the United States ; we have asked for the establish- 
ment of district courts in California, for the simple admission that the 
Constitution of the United States prevailed over that country, in order 
to wring from those who opposed our lights under it some opjiortunity 
to test them legally. After all this, and when Congressional agitation 
has prevailed to prevent the slaveholder from migrating with his property, 
and sharing in the determination of the fundamental law, we are now told, 
with patronizing air, that we ought not to object since we have not been 
prohibited from participation in the Territories by Congress, and that in 



11 

the case of California we are bound to accept such terms as the inhab- 
itants of the Territory possessing it, under such circumstances, shall 
think fit to dictate to us. That the will of the conglomerated mass of 
gold-hunters, foreign and native, is to be taken as the decree of Nature, 
and to be held authoritative for the exclusion of citizens of the United 
States from equal privileges which the Constitution declares, and was 
established to secure. 

Why, sir, what choice is there between this and the Wilmot Proviso? 
I for one, would prefer the Wilmot Proviso. I demur, sir, after the 
House had killed the Wilmot Proviso, against any claim to a dukedom 
for him who brings the lifeless corpse into the Senate. I wont agree to 
grant it, even under the threat of being left to kill all future Percys, 
M'ithout the aid of the knight who found the body by the wayside ; least 
of all, have I any thanks to return to the Senator from Pdinois, for the 
ground which he says he has assumed among his constituents in oppos- 
ing the Wilmot Proviso; that it had no application, because, slavery 
being already excluded from the Territories, it was wholly unnecessary 
to prohibit it by new enactment. 

Sir, I prefer the Wilmot Proviso to that position ; I prefer it, because 
the advocate of the Wilmot Proviso attempts to rob me of my rights, 
whilst acknowledging them, by the admission that it requires legisla,tion 
to deprive me of them. The other denies their existence. 

Mr. Douglas, (interposing.) Mr. President, I do not know what is the 
intention of the Senator in bringing me into his speech. I am not 
aware 

Mr. Davis. I alluded to the position which you assumed in debate 
yesterda}', for the purpose of answering it. 

Mr. Douglas. I stated then, as I have always stated, and as I state 
now, that I am opposed to the Wilmot Proviso, because, in my judgment, 
it violates a fundamental principle of free government — that all people 
have the right, derived from God himself, to regulate their own institu- 
tions as they see fit. 

Mr. Davis. If the Senator had been understood by me on that occa- 
sion as I understand him now — that he was opposed to the Wilmot Pro- 
viso because it violated a fundamental principle of our Government — I 
should not have alluded to him. 

Mr. Douglas. You will find it so reported in both the journals which 
report oflicially for the Senate. 

Mr. Davis. I did not mean to doubt it, sir. I am always prepared to 
admit that I am mistaken, when a Senator corrects me, in quoting from 
what he has said. I always permit him or any other gentleman to cor- 
rect me, when I am stating what his position is, or what I had supposed 
it to be. I should as soon think of disputing with him upon the pronun- 
ciation of his own name. I presume, of course, that he is right, and I 
am wrong. And even if he had presented the subject as I thought, and 
meant to say any thing else, his explanation is good with me, the intent, 
the idea of the speaker, not the language, being that which is valuable. 
I, perhaps, more readily so understood the Senator from Illinois, because 
such positions had been taken by the Senator from Kentucky. I think 
that his earnest, even solemn, appeal to the North not to impose the 
Wilmot proviso, rested solely upon the ground that there was no neces- 
sity for it, the exclusion being already complete. If our rights are to be 
taken away from us, if slavery is excluded from the Territories — and 



12 

the Wilmot proviso is only intended to exclude slavery — I do think that 
the honorable Senator from Kentucky presented to the North quite a 
sufficient argument for not pressing that measure. He asks them, for 
the sake of concord and harmony, for the sake of preserving the Union, 
to forbear from passing a law for an object and upon a subject which 
is, according to him, already covered by enactment, just as effectual for 
the purpose intended as that which he asks them to abandon. They 
must be very unreasonable, if they persist, under such circumstances, in 
a course of legislation so perilous and so unnecessary ; and, I think they 
might, for a less consideration than the preservation of the Union, con- 
sent to a sacrifice which would cost absolutely nothing. 

The Senator from Kentucky has not only spoken repeatedly of these 
resolutions as resolutions of mutual concession, but on one occasion at 
least he spoke of them as concessions in which the North yields to the 
South far more than she receives. Where is the concession to the South ? 
Is it in the admission, as a State, of California, from which we have been 
excluded by Congressional agitation ? Is it in lhe announcement that 
.slavery does not and is not to exist in the remaining Territories of New 
Mexico and California? Is it in denying the title of Texas to one-half 
of her Territory ? Is it in insulting her by speculating upon her supposed 
necessities, and offering her a sum of money in consideration of a sur- 
render of a portion of her territory ? Is it, by declaring that it is inex- 
pedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless this Fede- 
ral Govertmient make compensation to the owners of the slaves — a class 
of property with which this Government has nothing more to do than 
with any other? Or is it in another condition which places the property 
of the owner at the mercy of the wayfarer, that is unless consent is ob- 
tained from the District, which can doubtless be obtained at some early 
day, through the great numbers of agents and office-holders the North 
gives annually to this city as temporary residents? Is this, or either of 
these propositions, a concession to the South? Are we to fill the Trea- 
sury, in order that it may be emptied for purposes of abolition ? Is that 

' one of the purposes for which we submit to taxation, direct or indirect? 
Can money be appropriated from the Treasury for any other than those 
purposes indicated in the Constitution ? And was this Constitution formed 
for the purpose of emancipation ? Sir, it seems to me that this is a 

' question which gives its own solution — needs no ansvi'^er. 

All proi)erty is best managed where Governments least interfere, and 
the practice of our Government has been generally founded on that 
principle. What has been the progress of emancipation throughout the 
whole history of our country ? It has been the pressure of free labor 
upon the less profitable slave labor, until the slaves were transferred to 
sparser regions, and their number, by such transfer, was reduced to a 
limit at which, without inconvenience or danger, or serious loss, eman- 
cipation of the few who remained might occur. If this Federal Govern- 
ment had been invested with a trusteeship to take charge of the negroes 
of the United States, and provide for their emancipation, then I would 
admit that appropriations of money might be made out of the Treasury 
for purposes of abolition in the District of Columbia, but not otherwise. 
But, sir, is it true that the State of Maryland alone has any interest 
in this question ? Is it true that there is no implied faith towards other 
States than Maryland not to disturb this question ? The citizens of 
other States who helped to build up this Capitol and these public edifices 



13 

expected it to be neutral ground, upon which they might all come with 
their rights equally recognised, each as in the different sections of the 
Union. Was there no implied faith to them 1 Should we stand upon 
an equal footing in this District, the common property of the several 
States, if slavery were abolished and the Southern man were not per- 
mitted to bring with him a species of domestics to which he is accus- 
tomed and attached, and which are therefore necessary to him ? Would 
he have the same privileges in this District as those who have domestics 
of another sort? If not, then I say it ceases to be the common property 
of the United States, in which the citizens of every State have equal 
privileges. 

I will now, sir, in this connexion — because it is so much more pointed 
than any thing which I could offer on the subject — refer to the remarks 
made by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, when formerly a mem- 
ber of this bod}^ upon this very subject, the abolition of slaver}^ in the 
District of Columbia. He then said : 

"The following is the provision of the Constitution of the United States, in reference to this 
matter: 

"'To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding 
ten miles square) as may by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become 
the seat of Government of the United States.' 

"This provision preceded, in point of time, the actual cessions which were made by the States 
of Maryland and Virginia. The object of the cession w.as to establish a seat of Government of 
the United States, and a grant in the Constitution of exclusive legislation must be understood, 
and should be always interpreted, as having relation to the object of the cession." * * * « 

" If it were necessary to the efficiency of this place as a seat of the General Government to 
abolish slavery, which is utterly denied, the abolition should be confined to the necessity which 
prompts it — that is, to the limits of the city of Washington itself Beyond those limits, persons 
concerned in the Government of the United States have no more to do with the inhabitants of the 
District, than ihey have with the inhabitants of the adjacent counties of Maryland and Virginia 
which lie beyond the District." ********* 

"The grant in the case we are considering, of the territory of Columbia, was for a seat of 
government. Whatever power is necessary to accomplish that object is carried along by the 
grant. But the abolition of slavery is not necessary to the enjoyment of this site as a seat of the 
General Government. The grant in the Constitution of exclusive power of legislation over the 
District was made to ensure the exercise of an exclusive authority of the General Government to 
render this place a safe and secure seat of government, and to promote the well-being of the in- 
habitants of the District. The power granted ought to be interpreted and exercised solely to the 
end for which it was granted." 

That I hold to be a more conclusive argument against than the one 
which the Senator oifered upon this occasion for the power. We have no 
right to exercise any authority over the District of Columbia, except for 
those purposes for which it was ceded to the United States by the States 
to which it formerly belonged. Until the argument heretofore used is 
answered more effectively than on this occasion, it is perhaps unneces- 
sary to disturb it. Sir, if the argument of the Senator that slavery was 
prohibited in Mexico, and that thereby it is prohibited in the Territories 
acquired from her, were good in relation to slavery, it must equally hold 
good with reference to some sixty articles of ordinary commerce pro- 
hibited by Mexican law. In a letter from the Secretar}' of the Treasu- 
ry, March 30th, 1847, he states that about sixty articles of ordinary com- 
merce are embraced in the acts of prohibition in Mexico, including many 
of the most common articles of trade, such as cotton and cotton fabrics, 
salt, tobacco, coarse woollen cloths, grain of all kinds, and most kinds of 
leather, and other manufactured articles. If the right of the slaveholder to 
migrate into the Territories, and to carry this species of poperty there, is' 
prohibited by Mexican laws, so is the right of the ordinary trader to en- 
ter there with any of those sixty articles of commerce likewise prohibit- 



14 

ed, and the privilege which every citizen now freely exercises of free 
trade in the Territories does not exist of right. Bat the right of free 
trade throughout the United States is derived from the Constitution, and 
resulted necessarily and instantly from the transfer of the country to 
the United States. That right equally applies to the transfer of slave 
property from the domicil of the owner in any of the States to the same 
Territories ; and the Mexican laws are no more in force on this subject 
than on the other. 

But if I am told, by way of answer, that the revenue laws are extend- 
ed over the Territories, T reply they aie extendedonly by the authority of 
the Con^jtitution. The Mexican law which abolished slavery had not 
the same validity — it had not the same tbrmality — not the same binding 
force as those which prohibited these sixty enumerated articles of com- 
merce. It was because the Constitution overrode these prohibitory laws 
that free trade now exists. It is because the Constitution recognises 
property in slaves, and secures equal privileges and immunities to all 
'^citizens of the United States, that we claim the abolition of slavery by 
Mexico to have died with the transfer of those Territorii s to the United 
States. By the transfer of the terrilory, the sovereignly of Mexico was 
Avithdrawn ; the soverignty of the United States was immediately ex- 
tended over the country and filled its ])lace : a sovereighty to be meas- 
ured by our Constitution, not by the policy of Mexico. But let us sup- 
pose that it had been referred to Mexican people, whether they would 
more readily tolerate the introduction of free trade and of slavery or 
Protestantism within their boundaries, does any one doubt that they 
would say carry into California and New Mexico any or all of the sixty 
prohibited articles, and slavery likewise, but spare us the introduction of 
Protestantism. Does the established religion of IMexico remain in force, 
is- Protestantism excluded from the Territories, or does the freedom of re- 
ligious worship secured by our Constitution prevail over the land ? I 
hope it wall not be attempted to discriminate between the few and the 
many in cases of constitutional right ; that the principles of our com- 
pact, sacred to the defence of the minority, will not be stretched and 
contracted as prejudice or interest may dictate. 

The sovereignty of the United States refers to the Constitution. Up- 
on that I am disposed to rest the rights of the South, But, sir, because, 
on a former occasion, I stated what I believed to be our constitutional 
rights, but that as there were two great antagonist principles in this coun- 
the one claiming that slavery shall be excluded from all the Territories, 
and the other contending that slaveholders have a right to go with their 
property into all of the Territories, and as these two conflicting princi- 
ples could not be reconciled, as compromise Avas only to be found in a 
division of the property, that I would consent to the establishment of a 
line, on one side of which one of these princi|)les should ])revail, and on 
the other side the other should be recognized — because I stated this, and 
because 1 suggested that this common territory, which it seems cannot 
be enjoyed in peace together, should be divided, I was charged with the 
desire to establish slaver}^ where it does not now exist. I claimed as 
our existing right the privilege to go into all the territory, and said I 
would not recognize your right to exclude us from any portion of it; 
for one, I was willing to settle the controversy, and incur the hazard of 
taking the Missouri compromise line as a division, waving the question 
of right. I would agree to any compromise adequate to the present 



15 

crisis which equality and honor will permit. Now, sir, what was the 
casein the Missouri compromise? That was all slave territory ; and 
to be divided between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States, it 
merely required a line to be drawn, and prohibition to be attached to that 
part which was assigned to the non-slaveholding interest. So in the 
case of Texas, with the exception that, as the territory was covered by 
the jurisdiction of a sovereign State, the prohibition could only take ef- 
fect after Texas withdi-ew her sovereignty from tlie part so provided for. 
Mr, President, in all the controversy which has arisen about the va- 
lidity and extent of the Mexican law, no species of property has ever 
been denied the right to enter the territory we have acquired, except ' 
slaves. Why is this ? What is there in the character of that property 
which excludes it from the general benefit of the principles applied to 
all other property ? It is true that gentlemen have asserted that this is 
local, and depends upon the laws of the States in which it exists ; that 
it was established by municipal regulations. But gentlemen must un- 
derstand that this slave property, like all other, is not the creation of 
statute, it is regulated b}^ law like other tenures and relations of society, 
but like other property, must have existed before laws were passed con- 
cerning it ; like other property, resulted from the dominion of mind over 
matter, and, more distinctly than most other species of property, is traced 
back fb the remotest period of antiquity. Following up the stream of 
time, as far as history will guide us, we find there, in the earliest stage 
of societ}^, slavery existing, and legislated upon as an established insti- 
tution. And wherever the hieroglyphics of Egypt have been decipher- 
ed, and have told the history of ages not otherwise recorded, they show 
that the Ethiopian, so far as he has been traced, has been found in the 
condition of bondage. This kind of property was not established here 
by law, nor did it originate here. It came into the colonies as all other 
propert}^, subject to the common law which then governed them^ 
and from time to time, laws have been passed to regulate it, but never 
to establish it. No law has ever been passed to make a freeman a slave, 
save that which imposes involuntary servitude as a punishment for 
crimes. Slaves were purchased upon the coast of Afiica, and brought to 
the colonies of the United States, in their earliest history. Those colo- 
nies resisted such importations, yet the mother country continued it ' 
because it was profitable to her commere ; and after this Union was 
formed, those States w^hich now insist upon restricting slaverj^ — 
now most vociferous for abolition — were the same that extended the 
period to which slaves were introduced into the United States; 
the same that postponed the date when the custom-house of- 
ficers of the United States should be required to execute the laws 
of Virginia, to prevent the further introduction of negroes and mii- 
lattoes from the West Indies. Yes, it was northern men who re- 
buked Mr. Randolph for speaking of the high powers which Virginia 
might exercise, if the Federal Government should not require her cus- 
tom-house oflicers to aid in the execution of that law. This property, 
after it had ceased to be connected with the slave-trade, and no longer 
served to employ shipping and gratify the avarice of those who had sus- 
tained the policy of that trade, became the subject of popular declama- 
tion ; and those who grew rich in the traffic have been ever since making 
public demonstration of their horror of the crime, as they denominate 
slavery. It was, so far as our interest was involved, a sound, wise policy 



16 

that abolished that trade, and I presume there is no man in the United 
States who would be willing to revive it. 

The slave trade, however, so far as the African was concerned, was 

* a blessing ; it brought him from abject slavery and a barbarian mas- 
ter, and sold him into a Christian land. It brought him from a benight- 
ed region, and j)laced him in one where civilization would elevate and 
dignify his nature. It is a fact which history fully establishes, that 
through the portal of slavery alone, has the decendant of the graceless 
son of Noah ever entered the temple of civilization. Thus has been 
made manifest the inscrutable wisdom of the decree which made him a 
servant of servants. The slave trade has been the greatest source of 
permanent blessing to him. It has sent back a population possessed of 
an intelligence that would have never been reached in their own coun- 
try. It has established that colony which, if any thing can, may lead 
to the extinction of the slave trade. I say if any thing can ; for it is a 
notorious fact, that the slave trade has increased in proportion to the ef- 
forts made to destroy it. And the horrors of the traffic have increased 
in a still higher ratio; not only by the sutFei-ing which resulfs from the 
necessity of using small vessels to escape the vigilance of the cruisers, 
but also by famine and disease caused by long delay on the coast, the 
result of difficulty in embarkation, under the watchtul vigilance of the 
observing squadron. From like cause many of the slaves brouglit to the 
coast of Africa have been massacred by their barbarian masters. In 
1840 the commander of the British ship Actaeon wrote to the Secretary 
of the Admiralty that the native chief of Lagos caused upwards of two 
thousand of his slaves to be slaughtered. Let this speak to those who 
suppose that slavery begins with transportation, and that absolute power 
over the African is a thing peculiar to our continent. But, whatever be 
the curse or the blessings of the African slave trade, it is a thing 

• which was never introduced or engaged in by the South, and one for 
which Southern men never were and their descendants are not responsible. 
It is not our province to reply to any strictures which may be made 
upon it ; it is odious among us now, as it was with our ancestors. We 
only defend the domestic institution of slavery as it exists in the United 
States; the extension of which into any new Territory will not increase 
the number of the slaves by one single person, but which it is very pro- 
bable may, in many instances, produce emancipation. If, during the 
early settlement of a country, slaves are permitted to enter, the excess 
of demand over supply of labor will no doubt cause their introduction ; 
but if it prove to be one in which climate and soil are both opposed to 
their use, then the population of the States which may be erected there, 
Avill as certainly decree emancipation, as the same causes produced 
*the emancipation of slavery in any of the Northeastern States. It is not, 
then, for the purpose of emancipation or for the benefit of the slave that 
it is sought to restrict it ; no, sir, quite otherwise ; for it will be remem- 
bered that, on the floor of the Senate, it was once avowed that the poli- 
cy of the extension of slavery was opposed because it would be the 
means of multiplying their number by increasing their substantial 
comforts. Yes, sir, we were pointed to the statistics of the North to 
show that crime, and degradation, and poverty, drew in their train, as a 
natural result, a check to the increase, and indicated the final extinction 
of the free blacks resident in that section ; and those who said this are 
the same who, with pretensions of philanthropy, of special regard for 



17 

the African, are striving for abolition, and attacking the peace of the 
people with whom they live, and between whom and them exist rela- 
tions as kind as those which exist between man and man in the ordina- 
ry relation of life. 

But, sir, the Senator, after declaring that no earthly power could in- 
duce him to vote for the recognition of this right to introduce slaves 
into the territory of the United States, announced that the effort to 
claim the recognition of it was an effort to propagate slavery, and 
then, as though it were a convertible term, said to propagate wrong. 
I do not propose to discuss the justice or injustice of slavery as an ab- 
stract proposition ; I occupy this seat for no such purpose. It is enough 
for me to know, that here we are not called upon to legislate either 
for its amelioration or to fix the places in which it shall be held, and cer- 
tainly have no power to abolish it. It is enough for me elsewhere to 
know, that it was established by decree of Almighty God, that it is sanc- 
tioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations ; 
that it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the^ 
highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts. 
It is enough, if this were not sufficient, to know that it existed in all the 
States of this Union at the period of the confederacy, and in all but one 
at the adoption of this Constitution, and that in one-half of them it con- 
tinues to exist at the present day. It does not follow, because he be- 
lieves it demonstrable, that a Southern man should enter into an argu- 
ment to justify the right to hold property of this character. Testimony 
might be produced to show that many blessings spring from it, in pro- 
portion to the evils that are so loudly denounced as an inherent part of 
it. But I ask of those who entertain opinions opposite to mi e, is it well 
to denounce an evil for which there is no cure? Why not denounce 
criminal laws, declaim against disease, pain, or poverty, as wrong? 
There are many evils in the condition of man which we would be glad 
to remedy ; but, not being able, we permit them to exist as less than 
those which would follow an interference with them. 

The abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, so long agitated 
in both halls of Congress, and which has formed the themes of so many 
Northern lectures, I had hoped, whilst they had so many more important 
themes, and especially whilst assuring us that there was no intention to 
interfere with slavery in the States, but only to prevent its extension, 
would for a season have been permitted to repose, if it be now impossi- 
ble to return to the sounder opinions of other times. It was formerly 
the case — I will not say in the better days of the republic, though any 
that have gone before may prove to be better than these — that Northern 
men, on account of the implied faith of the cession, and for the peace 
that should exist in the place held lor common purposes by a common 
Government, resisted every attempt to touch the institution of slavery in 
the District of Columbia. Such, I recollect, was the course of a distin- 
guished Senator once, from the State of Pennsylvania — distinguished 
then, and more distinguished since — distinguished by his capacity — dis- 
tinguished by his high attainment — distinguished for his high eloquence — 
yet more distinguished still for the pure morality of his life, and the stern 
patriotism of his character. That SenatQj' (Mr. Buchanan, of Pennsyl- 
vania) presented from the people of his own State a petition for the 
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. After a long and able 
discussion, the prayer of the petitioners was rejected by a vote of 34 



18 

to G. He presented it as a matter of respect to those who had enclosed it 
to him; ])ut he moved that it be rejected, and made a speech in favor of 
its rejection. From that speech I will read some short passages: 

"The Constitution has, in the clearest terms, recognized the right of property in slaves. It pro- 
hibits any State into which a slave may have fled from passing any law to discharge him from 
slavery, and declares that he shall be delivered up by the authorities of such State to his master. 
Nay, more; it makes the existence of slavery the foundation of political powers, by giving to those 
States within which it exists Representatives in Congress, not only in proportion to the whole 
number of free persons, but also in proportion to three fiilhs of the number of slaves." 

" Sir, said Mr. B., this question of domestic slavery is a weak point in our institutions. Tariffs 
may be raised almost to prohibition, and then they may be redviced so as to yield no adequate 
protection to the manufacturer; our Union is sufliciently strong to endure the siiock. Fierce po- 
litical storms may arise; the moral elements of the country may be convulsed by the struggles of 
ambitious men for the highest honors of Government. The sunshine does not more certainly 
succeed the storm than that all will again be peace. Touch this question of slavery seriously — 
let it once be made manifest to the people of the South that they cannot live with us, except in a 
state of continual apprehension and alarm for their wives and their children, for all that is near 
and dear to them upon the earth, and the Union is from that moment dissolved. It docs not then 
become a question of expediency, but of self-preservation. It is a question brought home to the 
fireside — to the domestic circle — of every white man in the Southern States." 

Thus he spoke in 1835 ; and recently, when no longer in the public 
councils, he answered an invitation from his old friends in Berks county, 
Pennsylvania, and then, alluding to this same harassing and distracted 
question, used the following language : 

" Afler Louisiana was acquired from France by Mr. .lefTerson, and when the State of Mis- 
souri, which constituted a part of it, was about to be admitted into the Union, the Missouri ques- 
tion arose, and in its progress threatened the dissolution of the Union. This was settled by the 
men of the last generation, as other important and dangerous questions have been settled, in a 
.spirit of mutual concession. Under the Missouri compromise, slavery was ' forever prohibited' 
north of the parallel of .30 degrees 30 minutes; and south of this parallel the question was left 
to be decided by the people. Congress, in the admission of Texas, following in the footsteps of 
their predecessors, adopted the same rule; and, in my opinion, the harmony of the States, and 
even the security of the Union itself, require that the line of the Missouri compromise should be 
extended to any new territory which vre may acquire from Mexico." 

Now, I have no doubt that if that honorable gentleman was upon this 
floor he would \o\e for the extension of the Missouri compromise line to 
the Pacific, with the admission of our right below the line as distinctly 
as the prohibition above it. I do not believe he would practise a delu- 
sion, but frankly and honestly would say that the application of the Mis- 
souri compromise line to the present case would require new tertiis. It 
would not be in keeping with the language I have quoted and the opin- 
ion I have expressed of him to act otherwise. Is it honest for those who 
have enjoyed all the benefits of the Missouri compromise, when it was 
run through slaveholding States and Territories, now to claim that these 
benefits are not to be extended to others? Who would expect a South- 
ern man to accept the Missouri compromise line with the condition of 
slavery prohibited above it, and nothing said about it below the line? 
What would be obtained? Would there be a settlement of the ques- 
tion — any peace secured to the country ? I ask, is it not ofiensive to the 
understanding of any man to suppose he will surrender substantial, es- 
sential rights for empty professions ? If I am told that it would be im- 
plied, but that the feelings of the North will not allow the expression, 
then, sir, lam offered new evidence of a hostility which is incompatible 
with the idea of compromisi^, or the expectation of its faithful observ- 
ance. 



19 

Thursday, February 14, 1850. 

Mr. DAVIS resumed and concluded his remarks as follows : 
One of the positions laid down by the honorable Senator from Ken- 
tucky, a-nd which he denominated as one of his two truths, was, that sla- 
very was excluded from the Territories of California and New Mexico 
by a decree of Nature. From that opinion I dissent. I hold that the 
pursuit of gold-washing and mining is better adapted to slave labor than 
to any other species of labor recognized among us, and is likely to be 
found in that new country for many years to come. I also maintain 
that it is particularly adapted to an agriculture which depends upon irri- 
gation. Till the canals are cut, ditches and dams made, no person can 
reclaim the soil from Nature ; an individual pioneer cannot settle upon 
it with his fomily, and support them by the product of his oAvn exertion, 
as in the old possessions of the United States, where rain and dew unite 
with a prolific soil to reward freely and readily the toil of man. It is 
only by associated labor that such a country can be reduced to cultiva- 
tion. They have this associated labor in Mexico under a system of 
peonage. That kind of involuntary servitude, for debt I suppose, cannot 
long continue to exist under American institutions ; theretbre the only 
species of labor that can readily supply its place under our Government 
M'-ould, I think, be the domestic servitude of African slavery ; and there- 
fore I believe it is essential, on account of the climate, productions, soil, 
and the peculiar character of cultivation, that we should during its first 
settlement have that slavery in at least a portion of California and New 
Mexico. It is also true, that in certain climates only the African race 
are adapted to work in the sun. It is from this cause perhaps more than 
all others that the products of Mexico, once so important and extensive, 
have dwindled into comparative insignificance since the abolition of sla- 
very. And it is also on that account that the prosperity of Central and 
Southern America generally has declined, and that it has been sustained 
in Brazil, where slavery has continued ; that Jamaica and St. Domingo 
have now, from being among the most productive and profitable colonies, 
sunk into decay, and are relapsing to desert and barbarism ; and yet Cuba 
and Porto Rico continue to maintain, I might say to increase, their pros- 
perity. I therefore deny what is affirmed by the Senator from Kentucky 
to be his second truth, and in support of that denial call attention to the 
wealth and productiveness of Mexico when slavery existed there, and in- 
vite a comparison between that and its condition at present. In the great 
work of Humboldt we find the following statement : 

" Mexico, in 1803, after defraying the annual expenses of her administration, .f 10,500,000, 
which included the cost of her army of 10,000 Spanish troops, and after remitting to Spain a sur- 
plus of ^6,000,000 in specie, exhibits the singular spectacle of a distant colony sustaining the other 
colonies of Spain by the annual remittance to each of the following sums: 

To Louisiana $557,000 

To Florida 151,000 

To Cuba 1.820,000 

.To Porto Rico 377,000 

To St. Domingo 274,000 

To Trinidad 200,000 

To Philippine Isles 250,000 

Aggregate $3,635,000 

That she might have been called upon to contribute something to the 
everglades and sands of Florida is not so unreasonable ; but that the 



20 

rich alluvial of Louisiana, with her population industrial, intelligent, 
established, and engaged in the same pursuits then as now ; that the 
islands of Cuba and Porto Rico, which now, in addition to their own 
heavy expendif:ures, contribute to support the .Spanish Crown, should 
then depend on annual contributions from Mexico ; and that Mexico has, 
since the abolition of slavery, become so impoverished that, to derive money 
for her support, she sold territory to the United States, is proof that can- 
not be denied of the value of the institution of slavery in a soil and climate 
like hers. The proof, if not in the whole is certainly in part of California 
and New Mexico applicable to the same extent as in the rest of the Re- 
public of Mexico. It certainly justifies a claim to trial before the decree 
is announced. 

We do not ask Congress to express an opinion in relation to the decrees 
of Nature, or say that slavery shall be planted in any of the Territories 
of the United States. We only claim that we shall be permitted to have 
the benefit of an experiment, that we may have that equal participation 
{ in the enjoyment of the Territories which would secure to us an oppor- 
tunity to be heard in the determination of their permanent institutions. 
We have only said that we are entitled to a decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, and that we should be allowed to try the in- 
stitution of slavery, that thus it might be ascertained what the decree of 
Nature is. Both these have been denied to us. We have been denied by 
Congress an appeal to the Supreme Court; we have been debarred by Con- 
gressional agitation from obtaining the decree of Natm'e. We ask that 
both shjiH be permitted to us ; granted not as a boon, but secured to us as a 
right — an equal right of the sovereign States of the South. More than 
this we have not claimed — more than this we do not desire. Instead of 
insisting upon the expression of any opinion of Congress in accordance 
with our own, we ask that the expression called for by the Senator from 
Kentucky shall be suspended. We ask that the decision of the Supreme 
Court and the decree of Nature may intervene ; and that Congress shall 
oppose no legislative influence to the one, and no obstacles to the fair 
decision of the other. No, sir, we have not sought to rest our rights 
upon the expression of Congressional opinion, but upon the principles of 
the Constitution and the laws of Nature ; least of all do we desire a 
compromise like that the Senator from Kentucky informs us he brought 
forward, and which was passed by Congress in 1821 — a compromise as 
devoid of substance as that made by William Deloraine, who, not having 
learnt his alphabet, being even unable to spell his neck verse, entered 
into a contract that he would not write. Like this was the Senator's com- 
promise with the State of Missouri that she would not pass laws in violation 
of the Constitution of the United States — laws, which, if she had passed 
them, would therefore have been void from their inception. We want 
something substantial, something permanent ; something that will secure 
to us the peace of which we are now deprived ; and something that will 
protect us from further interruption in the enjoyment of those rights and 
privileges to which we are entitled ; something which promises reason 
and good feeling, instead of passion and bitterness in the halls of legis- 
lation; not a mere verbal, illusory, temporary, fruitless escape from the 
issue thrust upon us. With this brief notice of what the Senator calls 
his second truth, I will now proceed to the consideration of the point 
that 1 was about to enter upon yesterday when the Senate adjourned. 
It is asserted that the Texas boundary is an open question, and that 



21 

the Government of the United States has power to close it, and that they 
derived this power from the terms of the annexation of Texas. I deny 
that it is an open question. I deny that the Government of the United 
States ever had, under the resolution of annexation, power to close it. 
Texas agreed that her boundary should be settled by the treaty-making 
power of the United States ; not "by the Government of the United States — 
not by the Congress of the United States, but by the treaty-making power 
of the United States ; and there is a great difference, as all will perceive, 
between referring this question to Congress and to the Senate and the 
President. In referring it to the Senate, Texas referred it to a body in 
which, at that time, one half of the members had interests like those 
which she desired to maintain. In referring it to the President, she re- 
ferred it to a Southern man, whose education and associations warranted 
a reliance both on his information and sympathies. If it had been re- 
ferred to Congress, her rights would have been in the House of Repre- 
sentatives fulJy under the power of the North, and this consideration 
might have entered very largely into the selection of the Senate and 
President as her advocate, or umpire. There was this difference, so far 
as her institutions were concerned, between referring it to the treaty- 
making power and to the law-making power of this Government, The 
treaty-making power being unable to adjust it, the President of the 
United States having failed to settle by negotiation, the boundary dispute 
with Mexico, he then, in conformity with the obligations to defend the 
territory of every State in the Union, resisted the aggression committed 
in the invasion by Mexico on the territory of Texas. The boundary 
w^hich was defined by the Congress of Texas before the annexation, with 
which definition the United States accepted her, was the only boundary 
the President could recognise, until a new boundary should be agreed 
on by treaty with Mexico. 

Whatever the United States might have done by treaty with Mexico, 
as to the boundary of the Rio Grande, it was plain that, when unable 
to enter into and settle the question by treaty, the United States was 
bound by every power the Government possessed, to maintain the juris- 
diction of Texas, to the extent it was exercised at the date of annexa- 
tion. The Senator from Kentucky well said that the President of the 
United States had no right to assume to settle the boundary of Texas. 
Nor, sir, did that great and good man ever assume such a power ; he 
but discharged the duties which devolved on him as the Chief Executive, 
to maintain the boundaries of the State, and to defend the Union against 
foreign invasion. In the discharge of this duty, and in the execution of 
this high responsibility resting on him, the Mexican war was undertaken 
for the defence of Texas against Mexican invasion. Then the question 
arises, shall the United States, after defending the boundaries of Texas, 
engaging in ^var to maintain those boundaries, and closing that war by 
acquiring all the territory claimed, and more besides, present her o^vn 
claim as opposed to the claim of Texas, and thus falsify the position she 
assumed when she went to war with Mexico to maintain the boundary 
of Texas? We must come to that, or admit the boundaries as laid 
down by her when an independent State, and which we asserted and 
maintained against the Government of Mexico. 

I wish also to call attention to another distinction. We did not ac- 
quire Texas as a Territory, out of which a State or States might be 
carved. Congress refused to acquire her as a Territory, and she came in 



22 

as a State. As a State she had sovereign jurisdiction over all her territory ; 
and, save under the qualified power granted in the resolutions of annex- 
ation, which must be strictly consti'ued as a contract between the two 
sovereignties, the United States had no power to touch an acre or a foot 
even of her territory. I leave the Senator who sits near me, (Mr. Rusk,) 
and who so ably represents that State, to maintain the boundary of 
Texas as asserted by her, to lay down the limits over which she has the 
right to claim sovereign jurisdiction, and further to maintain her title. 
I promised to be brief, and I am glad to leave the whole question in such 
able hands. 

But the Senator from Kentucky saj^s we have paid $15,000,000 for 
the acquisition of this territory, and that, therefore, Texas has no right, 
without paying part of the purchase money, to expect the benefit of the 
acquisition to the extent of her claim. Well, I am not able to make any 
distinction between Texas being called upon to make extraordinary con- 
tributions to pay a part of the purchase money and of the debt incurred 
in the prosecution of the war to maintain her boundary. As a sovereign 
State of the Union, she pays, through the revenue imposts, her quota 
towards the defrayment of all the expenses of the Government, whether 
for peace or war. This purchase money was to acquire territory from 
Mexico, and though eflicient to settle the question between the Govern- 
ments, which had been complicated by the events of the war, it was not 
a payment for any part of Texas, surely was not the purchase of a claim 
to be set up against our own citizens, nor a State of the Union. The 
boundary of Texas had been maintained by arms, and I cannot admit 
that it Avas purchased with money. But, if enumerated among the war 
debts, the sum agreed to be paid by the treaty goes in with all other ex- 
penditures incurred in the prosecution of the war. Texas, with no more 
right can be called on in an extraordinary manner to furnish funds to 
reimburse the one than the other. 

The Senator refers to the liberality of his proposition to give to Texas 
the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande ; and, strangely 
enough, that little strip of countr}'^ was assumed by him to be nearly 
equal to the territory of Texas east of the Nueces and of New INIexico. 
I presume he meant of the province of Texas as she existed under the 
Mexican Government. Well, sir, I have a table showing the extent in 
square miles of the old province of Texas. 

Texas, within her ancient limits, had an area in square miles of 148,569 
Between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, has - - - - 52,018 
North of Ensenado and east of Rio Grande, being the part claim- 
ed as being in New Mexico, 124,933 



Aggregate, 325,520 

The country west of the Nueces being less than half — not much more 
than a third — of the size of the old State of Texas. 

Texas, as annexed, was not the ancient province, but the independent 
State of Texas, as established by her revolution. Her title is now dis- 
puted to all that part of her territory which was once within the limits 
of Tamaulipas and New Mexico — being 177,051 square miles — which 
leaves 148,509 square miles for the State of Texas; that is to say, more 
than one-half of the territory she comprises is to be claimed, less than 
a sixth to be restored, and this is called a liberal concession. But the 



23 

territory held out as a great boon granted to Texas — that between the 
Nueces and the Rio Grande — is the very desert once so eloquently des- 
cribed by the Senator from Missouri, who sits near me, as the country 
through which the dividing line betM^een the United States and Mexico 
should be drawn. And I now believe that a line drawn through that 
country would be a better boundary than the Rio Grande. The boundary 
I desired was the mountain barrier south of the Rio Grande. I wanted 
all the country drained by the Rio Grande ; and I have regretted, from 
the time that amendment to the treaty failed, to the present day, that 
we did not decide to amend the treaty by taking from Mexico that por- 
tion of her northern possessions which, inhabited by a restless popula- 
tion, was an object of apprehension, and, infested by roving bands of 
Indians, was useless to her, and might have been highly beneficial to us. 
But, sir, the boundary of ancient Texas the Senator from Kentucky, I 
think, once admitted to be the Rio Grande. I think he once contended 
that the title to that boundary was as complete as that to the island of 
Orleans; but now when he refers to the acquisitions of territory which the 
United States have made within the last sixty years, he enumerates 
Louisiana, and Texas, and Florida, all of which he says inured to the 
benefit of the Southern States, save the amount above the line of 36'^ 
30'. Sir, I think the same Senator, in discussing the question of the ac- 
quisition of Florida, opposed it on the ground that we gave away the 
vast domain of Texas, more extended and valuable than the Territory 
of Florida. I think also that the acquisition of Florida was not a South- 
ern measure, and that Mr. Monroe justified himself before Southern men 
for that treaty by the necessity which sectional rivalry had created. It 
never was a Southern measure ; the Southern men "wanted Florida, and 
were willing to pay a fair price for it. They had long looked forward 
to the day when she would fall into our hands, as they believed, sooner 
or later, she must ; but they did not wish to acquire it at the expendi- 
ture requisite at the time it was obtained. Texas, theref re, should not 
be enumerated again ; for she was included in the old Territory of Lou- 
isiana, and from which she was separated by a contract unfavorable to 
the South. Leaving these things — stories twice told, and which are not 
necessary to repeat — let us take the question as it stands : let us take 
the Territories north and south of the line 36° 80', and then see where 
the balance of acquisition has gone. I shall refer to a pamphlet, very 
widely circulated over the United States, and which has been severely 
criticised, but I believe the facts set forth have not yet been denied — the 
pamphlet of Ellwood Fisher. He says: 

" When tne North American colonies confederated for resistance to Great Britain, the territo- 
rial area of the southern portion of them was 648,202 square miles ; that of the northern only 
164,681, or about one fourth as large." 

In reference to the cession of the Northwestern Territory by Virginia, 
he says : 

" The object of this cession and the ordinance of 1787 was to equalize the area of the two sec- 
tions. The acquisition of Louisiana in 1803 added 1,138,103 square miles to our territory, of 
which, by the Missouri compromise, the South obtained only 226,013 square miles, or about one- 
fifth ; the other four- fifths, notwithstanding they came to us as a slaveholding province, were al- 
lotted to the North, which thus had acquired more than 700,000 square miles of territory over 
the South. Florida and Oregon were acquired by the treaty of 1819, by which the South got 
59,268 square miles, and the North 341,463, making the North about 1,000,000 of square miles 
the most. In 1845 Texas was annexed, which added only 325,520 square miles to the South, 
even if all Texas were included. In 1848 we obtained 526,078 square miles more in the Territo- 
ries of New Mexico and California. And now the North claims the whole of this also ; and not 



24 

only this, biU half of Texas besides, which would make the share of the North exceed that of the 
South nearly 1,500,000 square miles— a territory about equal in extent to the whole valley of the 
Mississippi, and leaving the South only about 810,812 square miles, while the North retains 
2,097,124, or nearly three-fourths of the whole !" 

Estimating- all the territory not within the limits of any of the States, 
it will be found that the part which will inure to the benefit of the North, 
as against the South, if we extend the Missouri compromise to the Pa- 
cific ocean, M'ill be something more than 4 to 1. So much, sir, for the 
great advantages, territorially considered, which we of the South have 
derived from the acquisitions of the United States. 

But we at the South are an agricultural people, and we require an 
extended territory. Slave labor is a wasteful labor, and it therefore re- 
quires a still more extended territory than would the same pursuits if 
they could be prosecuted by the more economical labor of white men. 
We have a right, in fairness and justice, to expect from our brethren of 
the North that they shall not attempt, in consideration of our agricul- 
tural interests — if that alone be considered — to restrict the territory of 
the South. We have a right to claim that our territory shall increase 
with our population, and the statistics show that the natural increase 
of our population is as great as that of any part of the United States. 
Take out the accession from foreign immigration, and compare the in- 
crease of population in the Northern States and the Southern States, 
and the latter will be found a fraction greater. With this increase of 
population we must require increased territory ; and it is but just, and 
fair, and honest that it should be accorded to us without any restriction 
or reservation. I was surprised, then, to hear the Senator from Ken- 
tucky, while he admitted that he believed he had voted for the Missouri 
compromise, which asserted the power, and excluded the South from all 
the Territories she once owned north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, declare 
that no earthly power should induce him to recognise the right of sla- 
very to go into territory south of 36 degrees 30 minutes, where that in- 
stitution does not no^v exist. He then said, in emphatic language, that 
he would not plant the institution of slavery anywhere. That, sir, is 
not the proposition. Nobody asks the Federal Government to com- 
pel its introduction, or to plant slavery in the Territories, or to engage 
in the slave trade, in order to furnish material for extending the institu- 
tion into any new territory. All that we assert is the right of the 
Southern people to go with that species of property into the territory of 
the United States. That, therefore, is the right denied. And, subse- 
quently, while admitting that it was equally right and just if the majo- 
rity excluded slavery north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, that it should be 
permitted south of that line, yet, at the same time, he says he could not 
vote for a proposition that carried slavery into any Territory where it 
is not already established, though he would yield to such a decision by 
the majority. If it is equal and just that both rules or neither should 
be adopted ; if it is in the power of the majority to pass one measure, 
but not their will to pass the other, it seems to be the duty of any one, 
in the name of equality and justice, to interpose whatever power he 
may possess to place those equal and just conditions on the whole pro- 
position. In denying our right, however, under the Constitution, to take 
slaves into the Territories, he stated it to rest on a position somewhat, I 
think, like this : that slavery did not exist in all the States of the Union, 
and that, therefore, it was not a property recognised throughout the 



25 

United States , and in support of that position he supposed a case, that 
the Northern States should assert that the Constitution abolished slavery 
because they had no slavery within their limits. Now, to make this an 
equal proposition, it is necessary to declare that the power to protect is 
the same as the power to destroy — that this Government is the creator 
and not the creature of the States — that it is the master and not the 
servant of the States, and that it created property in slaves and estab- 
lished the institution of slavery. We claim that it is the duty of the 
Government to protect every species of property — that the Government 
has no right to discriminate between one species of property and ano- 
ther. It is equally bound to protect on the high seas the slave in the 
vessel as the hull of the vessel itself, and it is equally bound to protect 
slave property, if wi-ecked on a foreign coast, against a hostile asser- 
tion of foreign power, as it would be the wreck of the vessel itself. 
And to this error — for so I must consider it — this confounding of sove- 
reign and delegated authority, is to be attributed the claim which 
is set up, of power to abolish slavery, as derived from the exclusive 
legislation granted to the Government in this District. This construc- 
tion of the word " exclusive" would render it synonymous with the word 
" unlimited." That exclusive legislation was necessary for the protection 
of the seat of government will be readily conceded. It was essential to 
the Government to have exclusive legislation, so that no other authority 
might interfere with its functions. But unlimited legislation surely is not 
required, and I say it could not have been granted by the Constitution ; 
nay, more, I hold that the grant of exclusive legislation does not neces- 
sarily extend to the full power permissible under the Constitution of the 
United States, that there are restrictions, and broad distinctions, growing- 
out of the vested rights and interests of others — in this case not merely 
of the ceding States, but of all the States of the Union. The power of 
the Federal Government extends only so far as is necessary to secure 
the seat of government as such, and to protect therein the public pro- 
perty of the United States, The Senator asserts, because of the grant 
of exclusive legislation, that the Government has equal power over the 
District with that which a sovereign State possesses within its limits, 
applies this to theTegulation of the slave trade, and goes on to declare 
that which I will not deny, that the States have full power over this 
subject. Yet I could quote himself against this argument, and could 
show that he denied this power to the States, and arraigned those who 
asserted it as being on the side of the abolitionists. I refer to the case 
of Groves vs. Slaughter, where the Senator appeared as counsel, and 
where the right of Mississippi, here referred to, the right of a State to 
exclude the introduction of slaves as merchandize, was the very mat- 
ter in dispute, and where, having argued that the Constitution of Mis- 
sissippi was directory, and not enacting — that it directs the Legislature 
to prohibit the importation of slaves as merchandise, but does not itself 
prohibit — he goes on to say : 

" The last question in the case is, whether the provision of the Constitution of the United States 
which gives to Congress exclusively the right to regulate commerce between the States, is oppos- 
ed by the Constitution of Mississippi. The argument for the plaintiffs in error is on the abolition 
side of the question. The counsel for the defendant sustain the opposite principle. 

" The object of prohibition in the Constitution of the United States is to regulate commerce; 

to sustain it, not to annihilate it. It is conservative. Regulation implies continued existence 

life, not death ; preservation, not annihilation ; the unobstructed flow of the stream, not to check 
or dry up its waters. 



" But the object of the abolitionists is to prevent the exercise of this commerce. This is a vio- 
lation of the right of Congress under the Constitution. 

"The rirrht of the States to regulate the condition of slaves within their borders is not denied. 
It is fully a'dmitted. Every .-tate may, by its laws, fix the character and condition of slaves. The 
right of Congress to regulate commerce between the different States, which may extend to the 
regulation of^the transportation of slaves from one State to another, as merchandise, does not af- 
fect these rights of the States. But, to deny the introduction of slaves, as merchandise, into a 
State from another State, is an interference with the Constitution of the United States. Aftet 
their introduction they are under the laws of the States. 

"Nor is the power given by the Constitution of the United States to regulate commerce one 
in which the States may participate. It is exclusive. It is essentially so ; and its existence in 
this form is most important to the slaveholding States." 

It is not important, however, for the present investigation, to exam- 
ine these general positions taken then or now, and I will not pursue 
them further. The opinion is adverse, it will be seen, to the one the 
Senator stated on this occasion to the Senate. Both claim extreme 
powers for the Federal Government, and both therein I believe to be. 

wrong. , . 1 

Sir, it has been asked on several occasions during the present session, 
what' ground of complaint has the South ? Is this agitation in the two 
halls of Congres.s, in relation to the domestic institutions of the South, 
no subject for complaint ? Is the action of the Legislatures of Northern 
States, defeating provisions of the Constitution which are among its 
compromises for our benelit, no subject for complaint ? Is the denuncia- 
tion heaped upon us by the press of the North, and the attempts to de- 
grade us in the eyes of Christendom — to arraign the character of our 
people and the character of our fathers, from whom our institutions are 
derived— no subject for complaint? Is this sectional organization, for 
the purpose of hostility to our portion of the Union, no subject for com- 
plaint ? Would it not, between foreign nations — nations not bound to- 
gether and restrained as we are by compact — would it not, I say, be 
just cause for war? What difference is there between organizations 
for circulating incendiary documents and promoting the escape of fugi- 
tives from a neighboring State, and the organization of an armed force 
for the purpose of invasion ? Sir, a State relying securely on its own 
strength would rather court the open invasion than the insidious attack. 
And for what end, sir, is all this aggression ? They see that the slaves 
in their present condition in the South are comfortable and happy ; they 
see them advancing in intelligence; they see the kindest relations exist 
between them and their masters ; they see them provided for in age and 
sickness, in infancy and in disability; they see them in useful employ- 
ment, restrained from the vicious indulgences to which their interior 
nature inclines them; thev see our penitentiaries never filled, and our 
poor houses usually cmptv. Let them turn to the other hand, and they 
see the same race in a state of freedom at the North ; but instead of the 
comfort and kindness they receive at the South, instead of being happy 
and useful, they aro, with few exceptions, miserable, degraded, hlhng 
the penitentiaries and poor-hou.ses, objects of scorn, excluded, in some 
places, from the schools, and deprived of many other privileges and ben- 
efits which attach to tlie white men among whom they live. And yet 
they insist that elsewhere an institution which has proved beneficial (o 
this race shall be abolished, -that it maybe substituted by a state of 
thiiio-s which is fraught with so many evils to the race which they claim 
to be the object of their solicitude? Do they find in the history of St. 
Domingo and in the present condition of Jamaica, under the recent ex- 



27 

periments which have been made upon the institution of slavery in the 
liberation of the blacks, before God, in his wisdom, designed it should be 

done do they there find any thing to stimulate them to future exertion 

in the cause of abolition ? " Or should they not find there satisfactory 
evidence that their past course was founded in error ? And is it not the 
part of integrity and wisdom, as soon as they can, to retrace their 
steps ? Should "they not immediately cease from a course mischievous 
in every stage, and finally tending to the greatest catastrophe? We 
may dispute about measures: but as long as parties have nationali- 
ty — as long as it is a difference of opinion between individuals passing 
info every section of the country — it threatens no danger to the Union. 
If the conflicts of party were the only cause of apprehension, this Go- 
vernment might last forever : the last page of human history might con- 
tain a discussion in the American Congress upon the meaning of some 
phrase, the extent of the power conferred by some grant of the Consti- 
tution. It is, sir, these sectional divisions which weaken the bonds of 
union and threaten their final rupture. It is not differences of opinion ; 
it is geographical lines, rivers, and mountains which divide State from 
State, and make different nations of mankind. 

Are these no subjects of complaint for us? And do they furnish no 
cause for repentance to you? Have we not a right to appeal to you as 
brethren of this Union — have we not a right to appeal to you as breth- 
ren bound by the compact of our fathers, that you should, with due re- 
gard to your own rights and intei-ests and constitutional obligations, do 
all that is necessary to preserve our peace and promote our prosperity ? 

If, sir, the seeds of disunion have been sown broadcast over this land, 
I ask by whose arm they have been scattered ? If, sir, we are now re- 
duced to a condition when the powers of this Government are held sub- 
servient to faction ; if we cannot and dare not legislate for the organi- 
zation of Territorial Governments — I ask, sir, who is responsible for it? 
And I can, with proud reliance, say it is not the South ! it is not the 
South ! Sir, every charge of disunion which is made on that part of 
the South which I in part represent, and whose sentiments I well under- 
stand, I here pronounce to be grossly calumnious. The conduct of the 
State of Mississippi in calling a Convention has already been introduced 
before the Senate ; and on that occasion I stated, and now repeat, that 
it w^as the result of patriotism and a high resolve to preserve, if possi- 
ble, our constitutional Union ; that all its proceedings w^ere conducted 
with deliberation, and it was composed of the first men of the State. 

The Chief .Justice — a man well known for his high integrity, for his 
powerful intellect, for his great legal attainments, and his ability in 
questions of constitutional law — presided over that Convention. After 
calm and mature deliberation, resolutions were adopted, not in the spirit 
of disunion, but announcing, in the first resolution of the series, their at- 
tachment to the Union. They call on their brethren of the South to 
unite with them in their holy purpose of preserving the Constitution, 
which is its only bond and reliable hope. This was their objecl ; and for 
this and for no other purpose do they propose to meet in general Con- 
vention at Nashville. As I stated on a former occasion, this w^as not a 
party movement in Mississippi. The presiding officer belongs to the po- 
litical minority in the State ; the two parties in the State were equally 
represented in the members of the Convention, and its deliberations as- 
sumed no partisan or political character whatever. It was the result of 



28 

primary meetings in the counties : an assemblapje of men known 
throughout the State having tirst met and intimated to those counties a 
time when the State Convention should, if deemed proper, be held. Every 
movement was taken wilh deliberation, and every movement then taken 
w^as wholly independent of the action of any body else; unless it be in- 
tended by the remarks made here, to refer its action to the great princi- 
ples of those who have gone before us, and who have left us the rich 
legacy of the free institutions under which we live. If it be attempted to 
assign the movement to the nullification tenets of South Carolina, as 
my friend near me seemed to understand, then I say you must go further 
back, and impute it to the State rights and strict construction doctrines 
of Madison and Jefferson. You must refer these in their turn to the 
principles in which originated the revolution and separation of these 
then colonies from England. You must not stop there, but go back still 
further, to the bold spirit of the ancient barons of England. That spirit 
has come down to us, and in that spirit has all the action since been 
taken. We will not permit aggression. We will defend our rights ; 
and if it be necessary, we will claim from this Government, as the 
barons of England claimed from John, the grant of another magna 
charta for our protection. 

Sir, I can but consider it as a tribute of respect to the character for 
candor and sincerity which the South maintains, that every movement 
which occurs in the Southern States is closely scrutinized, and the asser- 
tion of a determination to maintain their constitutional rights is denounc- 
ed as a movement for disunion; whilst violent denunciations against the 
Union are now made, and for years have been made, at the North by as- 
sociations, by presses and conventions, yet are allowed to pass unnoticed 
as the idle wind — I suppose for the simple reason that nobody believed 
there was any danger in them. It is, then, I sa}', a tribute paid to the 
sincerity of the South, that every movement of hers is watched with such 
jealousy ; but what shall we think of the love for the Union of those in 
whom this brings no corresponding change of conduct, who continue the 
w^anton aggravations which have produced and justify the action they 
deprecate ? Is it well, is it wise, is it safe, to disregard these manifes- 
tations of public displeasure, though it be the displeasure of a minority? 
Is it proper, or prudent, or respectful, when a Representative, in accord- 
ance with the known will of his constituents, addresses you the language 
of solemn warning, in conformity to his duty to the Constitution, the 
Union, and to his own conscience, that his course should be arraigned 
as the declaration of ultra and dangerous opinions ? If these warnings 
were received in the spirit they are given, it would augur better for the 
country. It would give hopes which are now denied us, if the press of 
the countr)', that great lever of public opinion, would enforce these 
warnings, and bear them to every cottage, instead of heaping abuse upon 
those whose ease would prompt them to silence — whose speech, there- 
fore, is evidence of sincerity. Lightly and loosely Representatives of 
Southern people have been denounced as disunionists by that portion 
of the Northern press which most disturbs the harmony and endangers 
the perpetuity of the Union. Such, even, has been my own case, though 
the man does not breath at whose door the charge of disunion might not 
as well be laid as at mine. The son of a revolutionary soldier, attach- 
ment to this Union was among the first lessons of my childhood ; bred 
to the service of my country from boyhood, to mature age I wore its 



29 

uniform. Through the brightest portion of my life I was accustomed to 
see our flag, historic emblem of the Union, rise with the rising and fall 
with the setting sun. I look upon it now with the affection of early 
love, and seek to maintain and preserve it by a strict adherence to the 
Constitution, from which it had its birth, and by the nurture of which 
its stars have come so much to outnumber its original stripes. Shall 
that flag, which has gathered fresh glory in every war, and become more 
radiant still by the conquest of peace — shall that flag now be torn by 
domestic faction, and trodden in the dust by petty sectional rivalry? 
Shall we of the South, who have shared equally with you all your toils, 
all your dangers, all your adversities, and who equally rejoice in your 
prosperity and your fame — shall we be denied those benefits guarantied 
by our compact, or gathered as the common fruits of a common country? 
If so, self-respect requires that we should assert them; and, as best we 
may, maintain that which ^ve could not surrender without losing your 
respect as M^ell as our own. 

If, sir, this spirit of sectional aggrandizement, or, if gentlemen prefer, 
this love they bear the African race, shall cause the disunion of these 
States, the last chapter of our history will be a sad commentary upon 
the justice and the wisdom of our people. That this Union, replete with 
blessings to its own citizens, and diffusive of hope to the rest of mankind, 
should fall a victim to a selfish aggrandizement, and a pseudo philan- 
thropy, prompting one portion of the Union to war upon the domestic 
rights and peace of another, would be a deep reflection on the good sense 
and patriotism of our day and generation. But, sir, if this last chapter 
in our history shall ever be written, the reflective reader will ask, whence 
proceeded this hostility of the North against the South ? He will find it 
there recorded that the South, in opposition to her own immediate in- 
terests, engaged with the North in the unequal struggle of the Revolution. 
He will find again that, when Northern seamen \vere impressed, their 
brethren of the South considered it cause for war, and entered warmly 
into the contest with the haughty Power then claiming to be mistress of 
the seas. He will find that the South, afar off, unseen and unheard, toil- 
ing in the pursuits of agriculture, had filled the shipping, supj)lied the 
staple for manufactures, which enriched the North. He will find that 
she was the great consumer of Northern fabrics — that she not only paid 
for these their fair value in the markets of the world, but that she also 
paid their Increased value, derived from the imposition of revenue duties. 
And if, still further, he seeks for the cause of this hostility, it at last is to 
be found in the fact that the South held the African race in bondage, 
being the descendants of those who were mainly purchased from the 
people of the North. And this was the great cause. For this the North 
claimed that the South should be restricted from future growth — that 
around her should be drawn, as it were, a sanitary cordon to prevent 
the extension of a moral leprosy ; and if for that it shall be written the 
South resisted, it would be but in keeping with every page she has added 
to the history of our country. 

It depends on those in the majority to say whether this last chapter in 
our history shall be written or not. It depends on them now to decide 
whether the strife between the different sections shall be arrested before 
it has become impossible, or whether it shall proceed to a final catas- 
trophe. I, sir — and I only speak for myself — am willing to meet any 
fair proposition — to settle upon anything which promises security for the 



30 

future ; n.nj thing whicli assures me of permanent peace ; and I am will- 
ing to make whatever sacrifice I maj' properly be called on to render for 
that purpose. Nor, sir, is it a light responsibility. If I strictly mea- 
sured my conduct by the late message of the Governor, and the recent 
expressions of opinion in my State, I should have no power to accept 
any terms save the unqualified admission of the equal rights of the citi- 
zens of the South to go into any of the Territories of the United States 
with any and every species of property held among us. I am willing, 
however, to take my share of the resprnsibility which the crisis of our 
country demands. ] am willing to rely on the known love of the people 
I represent for the whole country, and the abiding respect which I know 
they entertain for the Union of these States. If, sir, I distrusted their 
attachment to our Government, and if I believed they had that restless 
spirit of disunion which has been ascribed to the South, I should know 
full well that I had no such foundation as this to rely upon — no such great 
reserve in the heart of the people to fall back upon in the hour of ac- 
countability. 

Mr. President, is there such incompatibility of interest between the 
two sections of this country that they cannot profitably live together? 
Does the agriculture of the South injure the manufactures of the North? 
On the other hand are they not their life-blood? And think you if one 
portion of the Union, however great it might be in commerce and man- 
ufactures, was separated from all the agricultural districts, that it would 
long maintain its supremacy ? If any ©ne so believes, let him turn to 
the M'ritten history of commercial States; let him look upon the mould- 
ering palaces of Venice ; let him ask for the faded purple of Tyre, and 
visit the ruins of Carthage ; there he will see written the fate of every 
country which rests its prosperty on commerce and manuffictures alone. 
United we have grown to our present dignity and power — united we 
may go on to a destiny which the human mind cannot measure. Sepa- 
rated, I feel that it requires no prophetic eye to see that the portion of 
the country which is now scattering the seeds of disunion to which I 
have referred, will be that which will suffer most. Grass will grow on 
the pavements now worn by the constant tread of the human throng 
which waits on commerce, and the shipping will abandon your ports for 
those which now furnish the staples of trade. And we who produce the 
great staple upon which your commerce and manufactures rests, we will 
produce those staples still ; shipping will fill our harbors ; ,^id why may 
we not found the Tyre of modern commerce within our own limits ? 
Why may we not bring the manufacturers to the side of agriculture, and 
commerce, too, the ready servant of both ? 

But, sir, I have no disposition to follow this subject. I certainly can 
derive no pleasure from the contemplation of any thing which can im- 
pair the prosperity of any portion of this Union ; and I only refer to it 
that those who suppose we are tied by interest or fear, should look the 
question in the face, and understand that it is mainly a feeling of attach- 
ment to the Union which has long bound, and now binds the South. 
But, Mr. President, I ask Senators to consider how long afiection can be 
proof against such trial, and injur}-, and provocation as the South is con- 
tinually receiving. ■ 

The case in wdiich this discrimination against the South is attempted, 
the circumstances under which it was introduced render it especially offen- 
sive. It will not be difficult to imagine the feeling with which a Southern 



31 

soldier during the Mexican v>^ar received the announcement that the 
House of Representatives had passed that odious measure, the Wilmot 
proviso; and that he, ahhough then periling his life, abandoning all the 
comforts of home, and sacrificing his interests, was, by the Legislature 
of his country, marked as coming from a portion of the Union which 
was not entitled to the equal benefits of v.'hatever might result from the 
service to which he was contributing v/hatever pov/er he possessed. 
Nor will it be difficult to conceive, of the many sons of the South whose 
blood has stained those battle-fields, ^vhose ashes now mingle with Mex- 
ican earth, that some, when they last looked on the flag of their country, 
may have felt their dying moments embittered by the recollection that 
that flag cast not an equal shadow of protection over the land of their 
birth, the graves of their parents, and the homes of their children so soon 
to be orphans. Sir, I asJc Northern Senators to make the case their 
own — to carry to their own fireside the idea of such intrusion and offen- 
sive discrimination as is offered to us — realize these irritations, so galling 
to the humble, so intolerable to the haughty, and wake before it is too 
jate, from the drea,m that the South will tamely submit. Measure the 
consequences to us of your assumption, and ask yourselves whether, as 
a free, honorable, and brave people, you would submit to it 1 

It is essentially the charactei-istic of the chivalrous, that they never 
specula'C upon the fears of any man, and I trust that no such specula- 
tions will be made upon the idea that may be entertained in any quarter 
that the South, from fear of her slaves, is necessarily opposed to a dis- 
solution of this Union. She has no such fear ; her slaves would be to 
her now as they were in the revolution, an element of military strength. 
I trust that no speculations will be made upon either the condition or the 
supposed weakness of the South. They will bring sad disappointments 
to those Avho indulge them. Rely upon her devotion to the Union, rely 
upon the feeling of fraternity she inherited and has never failed to man- 
ifest ; rely upon the nationality and freedom from sedition which has in 
all ages characterized an agricultural people ; give her justice, sheer 
justice, and the reliance will never fail you. 

Then, Mr. President, I ask that some substantial proposition may be 
made by the majority in regard to this question. It is for those who 
have the power to pass it to propose one. It is for those who are threat- 
ening us with the loss of that which we are entitled to enjoy to state, if 
there be any compromise, what that compromise is. We are unable to 
pass any measure, if we propose it ; therefore I have none to suggest. 
We are unable to bend you to any terms which we may offer ; we are 
under the ban of your purpose; therefore from you, if from anywhere, 
the proposition must come. I trust that we shall meet it and bear the 
responsibility as becomes us ; that we shall not seek to escape from it ; 
that we shall not seek to transfer to other places, or other times, or other 
persons, that responsibility which devolves upon us; and I hope the 
earnestness which the occasion justifies will not be mistaken for the 
ebulition of passion, nor the language of warning be construed as a 
threat. We cannot without the most humiliating confession of the su- 
premacy of faction evade our constitutional obligations, and our obliga- 
tions under the treaty Vv'ith Mexico, to organize governments in the Ter- 
ritories of California and New Mexico. I trust that we will not seek to 
escape from the responsibility, and leave the country unprovided for un- 
less by an irregular admission of new States ; that we will act upon the 



32 

good example of Washington in the case of Tennessee, and of Jefferson 
in the case of Louisiana ; that we Avill not, if we abandon those hiijh 
standards, do more than come down to modern examples — that we will 
not go further than to permit those who have the forms of government 
under the Constitution, to assume sovereignty over territory of the United 
States ; that we may at least, I say, assert the right to know who they 
are, how many they are — where they voted, how they voted — and whose 
certificate is presented to us of the fact before it is conceded to them ro 
determine the fundamental law of the country, and to prescribe the con- 
ditions on which other citizens of the United States may enter it. To 
reach all this knowledge, we must go through the intermediate stage of 
Territorial Government. 

How will you determine what is the seal, and who are the officers of 
a community uidvuown as an organized body to the Congress of the Uni- 
ted States. Can the right be admitted in that community to usurp the 
sovereignty over territory which belongs to the States of the Union ? 
All these questions must be answered, before I can consent to any such 
irregular proceeding as that which is now presented in the case of Cali- 
fornia. 

Mr. President, thanking the Senate for the patience they have shown 
towards me, I again express the hope that those who have the power to 
settle this distracting question — those who have the ability to restore 
peace, concord, and lasting harmony to the United States — will give us 
some substantial proposition, such as magnanimity can offer, and such 
as we can honorabl}- accept. I, being one of the minority in the Senate 
and the Union, have nothing to offer, except an assurance of co-opera- 
tion in any thing which my principles will allow me to adopt, and wh'-'h 
promises permanent, substantial security. 



W46 



'^' 



■"^J. 









,0^ v:5 









t> N C ^- 



'^^ A 



' -^-^M^ 






«}> * O M O " 









%A^ :m^^ X^' 







oV 






'p. 




71 » ^^ 0^ 



^dK 










t.0^^ =-^^^- %v*^ ;^-. Vo^' ■■^^■- \/ :? 



-iN *jr//Zc^\ '-y 



